[quote author=aiernovi link=topic=10602.msg129322#msg129322 date=1296607109]This is true. Think about the hymns we say everyday. Do you know what they mean? But even more than that, think about inquirers of the faith...it is not fair to make them learn a language and culture in addition to a faith

I think this needs some clarification. If someone is a foreigner and desires to belong or "be possessed" by someone else, does the foreigner need to adopt the customs of the desired culture, or does the desired culture need to adopt to the customs of the foreigner?

When Ruth decided she wanted to be Jewish, not because her late husband was Jewish, but because she desired the entire Jewish tradition - foremost the worship of God - what did she say? "Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried." Ruth 1:16, 17. And when she came to Jerusalem, did she expect to be treated as a Moabite in Jerusalem or a Jew in Jerusalem? Did she worship God in the Moabite language or in the Moabite customs, or did she worship in Hebrew with all the rules and laws of Jewish praise? Of course as a Jew, not a Moabite. Did she speak the Moabite language and expect others to speak to her in this language or did she learn and adopt all the customs of the Jews, including Hebrew?

In the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1, there are only 4 women mentioned. 2 were prostitutes, 3 were non-Jewish and 1 was "stolen" and married as property or spoils of battle. Yet all of these women not only desired the Jewish customs but did anything in their power to "be possessed" by the Jewish culture. And when they adopted their Jewish identity, they completely abandoned their former identity. Otherwise, Judah's son, Perez, (and all his descendants afterward) would not have been Jewish; Obed, Ruth's son, would have spoken Moabite and taught it to Jesse and David.

I'm not saying we must force people to learn a foreign language to become Coptic. I am saying if you adopt the Coptic Orthodox Church and all her customs, faith, beliefs and identity, then you shouldn't expect the Church to accommodate and change for you. The Church will do everything to help you, including praying in English for you, to help you attain salvation. But language is part of identity. And we shouldn't expect the Church eliminate Coptic for English because it is more popular. A foreigner should not force or expect his former custom or identity or language to mix or overpower the culture he seeks to become part of.

[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10602.msg129339#msg129339 date=1296612742]I'm not saying we must force people to learn a foreign language to become Coptic. I am saying if you adopt the Coptic Orthodox Church and all her customs, faith, beliefs and identity, then you shouldn't expect the Church to accommodate and change for you. The Church will do everything to help you, including praying in English for you, to help you attain salvation. But language is part of identity. And we shouldn't expect the Church eliminate Coptic for English because it is more popular. A foreigner should not force or expect his former custom or identity or language to mix or overpower the culture he seeks to become part of.

But our mission to bring people into the Church is FAR more important than keeping a language alive. Languages are beautiful things, and very dear to us, but they are really just a collection of sounds. We can keep our identity in other ways which aren't impediments to prayer (even though a couple of prayers in Coptic per liturgy doesn't hurt, especially if people have liturgy books with translations). The real problem is the fact that even most Copts don't understand Coptic - half the time, even the priest doesn't understand what he is reading - that's not a healthy state of affairs.

My point is, the Church needs teach Coptic widely if it wants to keep using it without it becoming a barrier for spirituality - making easy education available to the thousands of people who want to learn it but don't have the resources. Otherwise it becomes nothing but a barrier to the Church's primary mission.

I disagree. People convert to Orthodoxy because they like what they see. As I've already said, I'm not for total coptic, english or arabic. As long as there some sort of balance that is best. However, our job is not to evangelize or bring people to church. We aren't searching for numbers, we are seeking the quality of spirituality that the Orthodox Church offers. The goal of the church is to elevate its members to Christ. Not to gather more numbers. The fact is orthodoxy is not for everyone. People do not want the narrow path, or narrow gate. They want things spirituality spoon fed to them.

I agree that in general, there needs to be more information about the Orthodox church as Remenkemi has stated, they are to adopt to the ways of Orthodoxy, not have the Orthodox Church change its ways for them to be comfortable, Orthodoxy isn't about being comfortable. Are the monks who strive for perfection comfortable? I doubt it. Are the spiritually full? Absolutely. What are we looking for when we evangelize is the key question..my two cents

To Remnkemi: I agree with you to some extent. Here is where I agree with you: We are trying to spread Orthodoxy to the world and we should be entirely unaccommodating in that. Orthodoxy should not be compromised in any way. We have an obligation to deliver the faith the same way we received it. My issue is that we are trying to impose a culture and language on people when WE are the foreigners in America (or Canada, or Australia, etc) and so we are the ones who need to accommodate, not the other way around.

I am not saying we need to fundamentally change our worship in Coptic Churches, because we have become accustom to it and to force people to worship in a different way would be, not only difficult, but unnecessary and wrong. What I am saying is that people in the west deserve a chance to pray the way they feel most comfortable in the same way the St. Mark gave us that opportunity when he came to Egypt. What I am saying is that where the church reaches out in ministry, it should allow its new comers to worship how they feel comfortable so long as it is in line with our Orthodoxy. Look at the work that Bishops Boules and Antonious Markos have done in Africa. You wouldn't recognize a liturgy there if you saw it. Does that make it wrong? Of course not.

Take another example. Look at our sister churches. We all worship in very different ways. We do not impose our specific type of worship on the Syrian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, British Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox etc. Shouldn't we allow the development of "American Orthodox" worship? Again, I'm not saying fundamentally change our Coptic worship. I am just saying maybe we should begin to think about forming ministry churches that teach Orthodoxy, but perhaps worship a little differently. Not radically different, mind you, since even in our sister churches you can see many similarities that show their common Orthodox roots.

To jydeacon: You said, "our job is not to evangelize or bring people to church" I think this is exactly our job and actually a divine commandment from Christ Himself when He said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." It is our job to go and baptize these people into His Church so that He may be their bridegroom. I dont want to take out any of the spirituality of the Church. I'm not saying to away with the monastic life, or fasting, or the agpeya, or icons. I'm also not saying that converts should be comfortable since the spiritual life is indeed a struggle. What I am saying is that the spiritual life is a struggle, why add unnecessary difficulties to it?

I dont see a simple answer to this question. However, I do feel that until we adequately answer it, we will not be able to spread the Gospel's message with any significant effectiveness.

"and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Well said aiernovi! This is one of the most important functions of the Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations ..." Matthew 28:19

We have a beautiful gift in Christianity, and it is to be shared! Human souls are precious, beautiful things which need Jesus' love and fellowship. But many may not feel comfortable in our own Churches, which is partly why we have branches like the French and British Orthodox Churches, where people can pray more comfortably in their own culture, while still being in community with us.

The point I am more concerned with is that even we don't understand Coptic. That's why we are forced to use it in moderation. But what's the point in keeping it at all if we're not doing anything to rehabilitate it? If we keep it, we need to be able to understand it, otherwise it ceases to be a language and becomes a set of meaningless syllables which we recite like a pagan ritual.

I agree, it is to be shared. But not in this type of manner. Also, we face the struggle of losing our youth to protestant based churches. I think before we can focus on spreading the faith and things in that manner, we should focus on keep our youth as well. I know this really has nothing to do with the language(sort of) and I am a bit all over the place but there are many issues we are facing within the church before we can really say we need to go out and preach and focus on some sort of out reach program. A church without youth has no future as youth without a church have no future.

[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=10602.msg129351#msg129351 date=1296617410]The point I am more concerned with is that even we don't understand Coptic. That's why we are forced to use it in moderation. But what's the point in keeping it at all if we're not doing anything to rehabilitate it? If we keep it, we need to be able to understand it, otherwise it ceases to be a language and becomes a set of meaningless syllables which we recite like a pagan ritual.

I had assumed that Coptic lessons were a feature of many (if not all) Coptic churches. Is this not the case? I know I've seen them in many places I've looked. Anyway, I agree with you: Coptic should be kept, but not as some kind of fetish -- education is needed to make it understandable not only as a language used in the liturgy, but as an indispensable part of the identity and history of the Church. There are experts in Coptic who could teach it. You could even become one yourself, if you have a particular passion in this area.

For my part, I do not look at it as a matter of forcing converts to learn or use another language. Indeed, I have heard perfectly Orthodox and reverent liturgies in English, Spanish, Arabic, etc. As a linguist, I can't have any other opinion than to say that one language is as good as another as far as its functional ability to express Orthodox theology is concerned. However, as a potential convert, I look at the Church as something analogous to an adoptive family. If I am going to join it, I should want to learn anything and everything I can about it, and integrate myself as completely as I can into it, rather than attempt to change it for my own comfort. I can understand that not everyone has the zeal needed to learn Coptic and preserve the old ways down to that level of detail, but since I do I don't think it's a bad thing. As far as understanding is concerned, not only is it possible to understand Coptic (it takes work, for sure, but it's not impossible), it also remains a fact that in some ways intellectual understanding is not necessary or the goal of prayer, no matter what language it is in (cf. the quote from Gruber in my first post in this thread).

[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10602.msg129368#msg129368 date=1296627964]I had assumed that Coptic lessons were a feature of many (if not all) Coptic churches. Is this not the case? I know I've seen them in many places I've looked.

Well I can't speak for the rest of the Diaspora, but in Sydney I can't say I've seen any Church that teaches Coptic. Mine certainly doesn't, and most of the deacons I know from other Churches have never mentioned any such service at their Church. It would be great if it was different overseas ... At the moment I think its safe to say that greater effort needs to be taken.

[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10602.msg129368#msg129368 date=1296627964]For my part, I do not look at it as a matter of forcing converts to learn or use another language. Indeed, I have heard perfectly Orthodox and reverent liturgies in English, Spanish, Arabic, etc. As a linguist, I can't have any other opinion than to say that one language is as good as another as far as its functional ability to express Orthodox theology is concerned. However, as a potential convert, I look at the Church as something analogous to an adoptive family. If I am going to join it, I should want to learn anything and everything I can about it, and integrate myself as completely as I can into it, rather than attempt to change it for my own comfort. I can understand that not everyone has the zeal needed to learn Coptic and preserve the old ways down to that level of detail, but since I do I don't think it's a bad thing. As far as understanding is concerned, not only is it possible to understand Coptic (it takes work, for sure, but it's not impossible), it also remains a fact that in some ways intellectual understanding is not necessary or the goal of prayer, no matter what language it is in (cf. the quote from Gruber in my first post in this thread).

The thing is, some people find language learning easier than others. Learning a language when you live in a country that speaks it is much easier than learning one from books. So some (like myself, and it sounds like yourself as well), to whom language and culture are valuable and inextricable from identity, will find it very enjoyable to learn Coptic, while others will find it very laborious and probably give up, simply because their heart isn't in it. And that's OK too. The Church caters for both. But at the moment, we need to make greater efforts to preserve and revive the language, if we intend to keep it as part of our prayers.

But as I've said, Liturgical Coptic is very, very simple and the vocabulary is tiny.

I've studied coptic as a language at university. its actually a very easy language, you rarely get any irregular verbs or weird sentence structure. its very straight forward. Our ancestors didn't like to make things complicated complicated ^^

[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=10602.msg129369#msg129369 date=1296628842][quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10602.msg129368#msg129368 date=1296627964]I had assumed that Coptic lessons were a feature of many (if not all) Coptic churches. Is this not the case? I know I've seen them in many places I've looked.

Well I can't speak for the rest of the Diaspora, but in Sydney I can't say I've seen any Church that teaches Coptic. Mine certainly doesn't, and most of the deacons I know from other Churches have never mentioned any such service at their Church. It would be great if it was different overseas ... At the moment I think its safe to say that greater effort needs to be taken.

i hope that "Mina" is me.In my church, we do have coptic lessons. in fact, we start the alhan classes of 3rd grade and up (maybe 2nd to) by teaching the letters and pronunciations. if they keep up in alhan classes they should be able to know how to read coptic.....not as a language to be spoken but good enough to read and maybe roughly write. that sets them up for the annual alhan comp of Staten Island 3rd group which requires participants to be able to read coptic.

now just consider what i said in the middle of all of this: "if they keep up"....meaning that they get the desire to learn more. it's the same thing with alhan. in young age, they are in some way forced to learn alhan or coptic. from what we show them, many get the desire to want more. they become interested and many times eager to learn more. they would bug you and annoy you to learn this from you or force you to explain this to them (speaking from experience as an alhan teacher). those ONLY are the ones who become the great deacons we have now; the ones that WANT to truly serve and take it that to help themselves serve better in their rank, they need to learn coptic and alhan. i know a deacon which is a great teacher. without mentioning names or getting into too much details, he found that he needed to learn arabic to say arabic hymns that are as simple as Ayoha al-rabo or the Oleka...etc. he taught himself arabic to achieve what he wanted to do.......not much ppl care like this anymore. only a few handful of people who do, act upon it and become the next true generations of servants of the Lord; deacons.

there are many issues we are facing within the church before we can really say we need to go out and preach and focus on some sort of out reach program. A church without youth has no future as youth without a church have no future.

I think I have to disagree with this a bit.

The commandment to go into all the world and preach the Gospel is an imperative. We do not have a choice. If we do not obey then we are not faithful. This mission has multiple components.

i. We must evangelise those within our own local Orthodox communities, as an ongoing process

ii. We must evangelise those in the wider community around us, as an ongoing process

iii. We must evangelise those in other places and support those doing this, as an ongoing process.

We cannot use the issues we might have with youth as a reason not to evangelise those in the community around us. Indeed many problems with youth, it seems to me, are caused by a lack of evangelism of the wider community. If we were all committedto sharing our faith with those around us then we would have to understand how to explain what we believe to those who speak English, French, Spanish, Dutch etc. dealing with the questions that arise during evangelism. And having that understanding we would also understand how to deepen the faith of our youth, who often ask the same questions.

Being baptised does not make someone a Christian for ever. The Coptic youth require a constant evangelism directed at them so that they are repeatedly 'won for Christ'. This is the same process which we should be using to engage those outside the Coptic community who seek Orthodoxy.

I do not entirely agree with the phrase 'a church without youth has no future'. It is a Church that does not reach out to its community which has no future. Every youth has the responsibility to choose for his or herself if they will be Orthodox. Some will choose not to. The Church has the responsibility to make sure that the Orthodox Faith and Tradition are presented to the youth in a way they can understand and therefore can make such a choice as an ongoing process. But this presentation is evangelism. It is the same process of instruction which seekers and enquirers should be able to follow.

In a non-majority situation a community that concentrates only on itself will slowly diminish. Each generation there will be some who leave and marry outside. There will be no newcomers because the focus is only inward. I have seen many such groups in my lifetime. The growth of the Church has always required a generous looking outwards. Even if (God forbid) all of the youth in a congregation joined a protestant church, God is over all, there are tens of thousands of non-Orthodox who can be reached to take their place as witnesses to the Truth. But let us rather desire that the youth understand and appreciate this treasure AND that many thousands of Americans, Canadians etc etc also become Orthodox.

The Coptic language is part of the heritage of the Coptic Orthodox community, and for a wide variety of reasons must be preserved, and I am sure will continue to be preserved. But in the context of the West the we must surely remember that before it we are Coptic we are Orthodox. And if we are to be Orthodox then we must, as has already happened in many places, discover how to present the treasures of our Orthodox Faith in a manner that allows them to be embraced by those who do not speak Arabic or Coptic, and do not need to, to any great extent. This is surely necessary for the youth and for the hundreds and thousands and millions outside the Church who are also our responsibility.

I disagree with the view that there is benefit in standing in worship while all around is in a foreign language. The idea that the Holy Spirit prays when we do not know how has NOTHING to do with this situation. Last night I was wanting to pray for all of the Church in Egypt, and for so many others who are troubled and it seemed that not even 24 hours would be enough time in the day to pray for all those with need, and in that sense I offered the burden of my heart to the Lord in praying Lord have mercy, without naming every person. It also has meaning in the context of a monk who is granted the blessing of the visitation of the Holy Spirit so that they are taken beyond the use of words. It DOES NOT mean that it is fine to stand in worship each week and not know what is being prayed or said.

We ARE in the West. We ARE Orthodox Christians of the Coptic Tradition in the West. We are not in Egypt. There are different responsibilities and a different culture to engage with and challenge. If I went to live in Egypt I would not evangelise people and expect them to learn English. At Pentecost all of the world's languages were heard because ALL the world's languages are vehicles for the worship of God. It is Orthodoxy which we must present to the youth and to the world. This requires us to use language that the youth and the world can understand. This does not diminish our Orthodoxy.

The one who is truly Orthodox may well want to learn Coptic, and there is no issue even in the most anglophone congregation for learning and singing some hymns or prayers in Coptic. But becoming Orthodox must precede in importance having a knowledge of the Coptic language. St Cyril did not worship in Coptic, but he was most certainly Orthodox.

there are many issues we are facing within the church before we can really say we need to go out and preach and focus on some sort of out reach program. A church without youth has no future as youth without a church have no future.

I think I have to disagree with this a bit.

The commandment to go into all the world and preach the Gospel is an imperative. We do not have a choice. If we do not obey then we are not faithful. This mission has multiple components.

i. We must evangelise those within our own local Orthodox communities, as an ongoing process

ii. We must evangelise those in the wider community around us, as an ongoing process

iii. We must evangelise those in other places and support those doing this, as an ongoing process.

We cannot use the issues we might have with youth as a reason not to evangelise those in the community around us. Indeed many problems with youth, it seems to me, are caused by a lack of evangelism of the wider community. If we were all committedto sharing our faith with those around us then we would have to understand how to explain what we believe to those who speak English, French, Spanish, Dutch etc. dealing with the questions that arise during evangelism. And having that understanding we would also understand how to deepen the faith of our youth, who often ask the same questions.

Being baptised does not make someone a Christian for ever. The Coptic youth require a constant evangelism directed at them so that they are repeatedly 'won for Christ'. This is the same process which we should be using to engage those outside the Coptic community who seek Orthodoxy.

I do not entirely agree with the phrase 'a church without youth has no future'. It is a Church that does not reach out to its community which has no future. Every youth has the responsibility to choose for his or herself if they will be Orthodox. Some will choose not to. The Church has the responsibility to make sure that the Orthodox Faith and Tradition are presented to the youth in a way they can understand and therefore can make such a choice as an ongoing process. But this presentation is evangelism. It is the same process of instruction which seekers and enquirers should be able to follow.

In a non-majority situation a community that concentrates only on itself will slowly diminish. Each generation there will be some who leave and marry outside. There will be no newcomers because the focus is only inward. I have seen many such groups in my lifetime. The growth of the Church has always required a generous looking outwards. Even if (God forbid) all of the youth in a congregation joined a protestant church, God is over all, there are tens of thousands of non-Orthodox who can be reached to take their place as witnesses to the Truth. But let us rather desire that the youth understand and appreciate this treasure AND that many thousands of Americans, Canadians etc etc also become Orthodox.

The Coptic language is part of the heritage of the Coptic Orthodox community, and for a wide variety of reasons must be preserved, and I am sure will continue to be preserved. But in the context of the West the we must surely remember that before it we are Coptic we are Orthodox. And if we are to be Orthodox then we must, as has already happened in many places, discover how to present the treasures of our Orthodox Faith in a manner that allows them to be embraced by those who do not speak Arabic or Coptic, and do not need to, to any great extent. This is surely necessary for the youth and for the hundreds and thousands and millions outside the Church who are also our responsibility.

I disagree with the view that there is benefit in standing in worship while all around is in a foreign language. The idea that the Holy Spirit prays when we do not know how has NOTHING to do with this situation. Last night I was wanting to pray for all of the Church in Egypt, and for so many others who are troubled and it seemed that not even 24 hours would be enough time in the day to pray for all those with need, and in that sense I offered the burden of my heart to the Lord in praying Lord have mercy, without naming every person. It also has meaning in the context of a monk who is granted the blessing of the visitation of the Holy Spirit so that they are taken beyond the use of words. It DOES NOT mean that it is fine to stand in worship each week and not know what is being prayed or said.

We ARE in the West. We ARE Orthodox Christians of the Coptic Tradition in the West. We are not in Egypt. There are different responsibilities and a different culture to engage with and challenge. If I went to live in Egypt I would not evangelise people and expect them to learn English. At Pentecost all of the world's languages were heard because ALL the world's languages are vehicles for the worship of God. It is Orthodoxy which we must present to the youth and to the world. This requires us to use language that the youth and the world can understand. This does not diminish our Orthodoxy.

The one who is truly Orthodox may well want to learn Coptic, and there is no issue even in the most anglophone congregation for learning and singing some hymns or prayers in Coptic. But becoming Orthodox must precede in importance having a knowledge of the Coptic language. St Cyril did not worship in Coptic, but he was most certainly Orthodox.

Father Peter

Thank you soo much Fr Peter, you cleared up soo many things. That verse (Romans 8:26) had me thinking- beautifully explained.

I just had a small question, in our ever-increasingly busy lives how do we evangelise? After all we can't be like JW, going around knocking on doors. Setting a good example to the public... is that enough?

I think that evangelism begins with us seeking to understand our own Orthodox Faith. Not at the highest academic level, but to be able to explain what it means, both to ourselves and to others.

What is this Good News (which is what the word Gospel means)?

If we do not know ourselves then we will not be able to explain to others, even in ordinary conversations.

Evangelism begins by simply sharing our lives. When someone says, what did you do at the weekend, say, 'I was in Church on Sunday. We had a very moving service, and the sermon was really helpful'.

When someone says, 'I am really not sure what college course do apply for', we could say, 'I'm having the same problem, but I've asked lots of my friends to pray for me that I will make the right decision'.

This is the beginning of sharing Good News. If the Christian message is not Good News for us then we cannot share it.

There is scope for congregations having informative websites, arranging films and talks, having an Open Day with short talks etc etc. This is all part of sharing the Good News. But we must also reflect on how we welcome these people. If we had a liturgy or prayer meeting that we particularly advertised and invited people to there is a sense in which it should be prayed in a language that they can understand. This is also part of sharing the Good News. Otherwise it is like inviting someone to meet our family and then talking in a language that the guest cannot understand. It means that the Good News is not heard or understood, and even becomes Bad News for that person.

But while we are seeking to make our faith clearly understood to non-Orthodox in a simple and straightforward manner, so we should be doing the same for all of our youth, and indeed for us all. What is the Gospel? Can everyone explain it very simply? Why do we have icons? Why do we celebrate the sacraments? Why are we like we are? Why does it matter?

If the non-Orthodox cannot find answers to these questions then we are not doing evangelism. If our young people do not know the answers to these questions then they also need to be evangelised.

Both non-Orthodox and youth need to be able to say, 'Now I understand what Orthodoxy is, and I choose it for myself'.

Let me keep repeating, this does not mean that Coptic must be excluded. But a family meeting to which a guest is invited should normally, for the sake of hospitality, primarily use the language of the guest. If there are no guests at our family meal, the eucharist I mean, then we should not say, 'Well at least we don't have to bother using English', rather we should ask why there are no guests since the fields are white for the harvest and God wills that all men be saved.

That's great. I think it is important to be sensitive to the people we have worshipping with us.

I have picked up greetings and things in various languages, even Romanian, so that I can at least welcome people, and then offer them the peace in their own language, even if they do not speak English. Most do, but it is still good, I have found at least, to greet people in their own language. It shows that we care. And this is the case with English visitors especially.

Our Orthodox Faith and worship is very powerful when people are able to understand it in their own language.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we disagree on, Father, but since you referenced part of the passage I quoted from Gruber, I'm thinking maybe I should respond to what you've written, if only to repeat my earlier point:

Coptic is understandable (keeping in mind the observations of others that liturgical Coptic is relatively basic, but even so not everyone will learn it), and there will be some like me and apparently others who will want to learn it. And we will (I already am learning it, and I still haven't actually been to a Coptic church :-[). And that's good, right? It doesn't mean that liturgy shouldn't be in English in the West (certainly it should be...it has to be, at some point, because language loss patterns in diaspora demand it), or in some other languages in other places. You are absolutely right that teaching Orthodoxy is the goal, and that requires adaptability to local circumstances. My only point is that Coptic is a part of the Church's history and identity, and as such as has inherent value on that level. If I join the Coptic Church, I won't suddenly become (ethnically) Egyptian -- and I don't want to (sorry, guys. It's nothing personal. :P). But I will do my best to uphold this particular part of the tradition of the Church, since it is where my talents lie. We are all to use our talents to glorify God, no? God has blessed me with a passion for languages, so this is how I'll do it. And I'll glorify Him in English, and Spanish, and Russian, and what little Arabic I know. I don't see Coptic as anything different, save for its historical place in the particular Church I am interested in.

I am all in favour of people learning Coptic, and the other historic languages in which many texts are still hidden from those of us speaking Western languages. I have made a start with Syriac as well as Coptic. I considered having a go at Armenian.

I'm just not in favour of requiring enquirers to earn another language in the West to be able to understand or participate in Orthodoxy.

Yes, we apparently do agree. Again, I don't even see it as requiring people to learn...it is more like "You are interested in the Church? Okay, this is part of the Church. You don't have to learn it, just as you do not have to learn how to play the cymbals or the triangle, but you might find that you'll have a richer experience during liturgy if you do." Parts are probably going to be in Coptic (I have yet to hear a Coptic liturgy that is entirely in English, though I don't doubt that they exist), and knowing what is going on during them will help you feel connected during those times. Your mind is less apt to wander, you will be less frustrated, etc.

When I first attended a Catholic Church, many years ago, it was in Mexico, so everything was in Spanish. I speak Spanish more or less natively (since age 4), and my grandmother came from Mexico, so for me it wasn't a matter of not understanding the language. But I didn't know any of the responses or actions (genuflection, crossing oneself), since I wasn't Catholic. And it seemed like it went on FOREVER (Mass in Mexico, or at least the part of Mexico I was in, really does go on forever...at least as long as the average Orthodox Divine Liturgy...lazy "Novus Ordo" Catholics in the USA don't know the half of it!). So not knowing what the heck was going on was incredibly frustrating. So I can relate to the feeling that many are expressing in this thread. But eventually, many years later, when I approached the Catholic Church anew, I attended all the lessons necessary to know what was going on, and eventually stopped being driven mad by what seemed beforehand to be random, foreign and weird. So education is definitely the key! Because Coptic isn't random, foreign, or weird -- inside the Coptic Orthodox Church is exactly where you'll find it! But you should also find your own language in it, too, depending on the demographics of the congregation (again, this is more a function of the reality of being a diaspora than anything; for those churches in the West that don't use as much English, that will change over time, and is not the end of the world that some old-timers may think it is).

[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10602.msg129430#msg129430 date=1296674290]Yes, we apparently do agree. Again, I don't even see it as requiring people to learn...it is more like "You are interested in the Church? Okay, this is part of the Church. You don't have to learn it, just as you do not have to learn how to play the cymbals or the triangle, but you might find that you'll have a richer experience during liturgy if you do." Parts are probably going to be in Coptic (I have yet to hear a Coptic liturgy that is entirely in English, though I don't doubt that they exist), and knowing what is going on during them will help you feel connected during those times. Your mind is less apt to wander, you will be less frustrated, etc.

I guess what I disagree with is that while Coptic is part of the COPTIC CHURCH and we shouldn't remove it since it is part of our heritage, it is not a part of the ORTHODOX church. If we plan on bringing the ORTHODOX church to the west, we need to allow their culture to express itself and realize that Coptic is not their heritage and is of little value to them. Don't get me wrong, I love Coptic, I teach Coptic and my church, I teach hymns at my church, I've taken a course on Coptic myself, but it is because I was born into this culture and it is my heritage. For converts in the west, I would love for them to dive into the Bible, or the writings of the Fathers, or the monastic life, but I wouldn't want them to waste their time learning about a language that means nothing to them. Why don't we have aramaic classes at our church or Ge'ez classes? It's because these languages are irrelevant to us even though they are very important to their respective religions. In the same way, I feel like the future of the Orthodox church is one where it is free from the burdens of foreign religions and allowed to explore the depths of Orthodoxy

[quote author=aiernovi link=topic=10602.msg129432#msg129432 date=1296675801][quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10602.msg129430#msg129430 date=1296674290]Yes, we apparently do agree. Again, I don't even see it as requiring people to learn...it is more like "You are interested in the Church? Okay, this is part of the Church. You don't have to learn it, just as you do not have to learn how to play the cymbals or the triangle, but you might find that you'll have a richer experience during liturgy if you do." Parts are probably going to be in Coptic (I have yet to hear a Coptic liturgy that is entirely in English, though I don't doubt that they exist), and knowing what is going on during them will help you feel connected during those times. Your mind is less apt to wander, you will be less frustrated, etc.

I guess what I disagree with is that while Coptic is part of the COPTIC CHURCH and we shouldn't remove it since it is part of our heritage, it is not a part of the ORTHODOX church. If we plan on bringing the ORTHODOX church to the west, we need to allow their culture to express itself and realize that Coptic is not their heritage and is of little value to them. Don't get me wrong, I love Coptic, I teach Coptic and my church, I teach hymns at my church, I've taken a course on Coptic myself, but it is because I was born into this culture and it is my heritage. For converts in the west, I would love for them to dive into the Bible, or the writings of the Fathers, or the monastic life, but I wouldn't want them to waste their time learning about a language that means nothing to them. Why don't we have aramaic classes at our church or Ge'ez classes? It's because these languages are irrelevant to us even though they are very important to their respective religions. In the same way, I feel like the future of the Orthodox church is one where it is free from the burdens of foreign religions and allowed to explore the depths of Orthodoxy

Well, yes...but I am talking about people who are joining the COPTIC Church specifically, so presumably they would care about that heritage (or at least some of them would), even if it isn't part of their culture as it exists outside of the Church (if it is proper to make such a distinction, purely for the purposes of argument). It would not be worthless to them, even if it is not native to them (is it impolite to point out that Coptic is likewise not the native language of ethnically Coptic people, yet they obviously still care about it?). A comparison could be made, perhaps, with the Syriac Christians of India. They are mostly native Malayalam speakers, not from Beth Nahrain/Assyria. They have Orthodox songs in Malayalam that they sing at weddings and such, and additionally their liturgy has been translated into various languages that are spoken around them, in addition to their own native language. But they have not abandoned Syriac, and nor should they. They are not ethnic Syriac people, but it is part of the heritage of their church, and they want to preserve it. I am arguing for that, which is no way against Orthodoxy or against evangelization.

actually, in the uk at least, there are not many orthodox churches outside of big cities, so maybe someone wants to be orthodox and has been reading a lot of byzantine history and may have met orthodox friends on holiday in russia, but the nearest EO church could be 100km away, so that person may come to the coptic church without any previous interest in the coptic language, simply because it is the nearest orthodox church.

i think we should make it easy for such people to understand our church, and, on sundays at least, >50% of the liturgy should be in the language of the country the church is in.

this also goes for EO churches! i have been to a greek church where there were no books, no projector and only 2 or 3 words (literally) of the liturgy were in english. thank God someone preached in english, and i could join in with 'agios o theos', but i was quite lost as to when i should stand, sit, bow etc. also it took me a while to realise when the service had finished. i was able to recognise the 'great entrance' of the Body and Blood of our Lord, just because i had seen it in the british orthodox church, but i would have not had much idea of what was happening if i had been catholic or protestant, let alone non-Christian.

But the issue is that I want to be Orthodox. I joined the Coptic Orthodox Church because it is necessary to join the Church as she exists and not make up our own Church. But I did not join to become Egyptian. I am English.

I have happily embraced all aspects of the truly Coptic Orthodox Faith and Tradition, but I do not believe that language is part of the Faith and Tradition, it is a means of communicating it, and when the Church of Alexandria no longer usefully used Greek it adopted Coptic as the majority language, and it has adopted Arabic, and other Churches associated with Alexandria, and also evangelised by Syrians, such as the Ethiopians use neither Coptic not Syriac.

People need to become Orthodox. They don't usually choose to become Coptic Orthodox because they want to learn Coptic or Arabic. They choose to become Coptic Orthodox because THIS is the community they are learning Orthodox among. Of course that means that they will come into positive contact with Coptic, but in the early centuries of the Church there was NO sense of Coptic Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox. For a start everyone in the major centres used Greek, and secondly there were large communities of Syrians and Armenians in Egypt who were part of the Church of Alexandria structure but had no sense that they were required to learn Coptic. There were Syrian Popes of Alexandria. It is only in more recent times that the Church of Alexandria has narrowed in compass. Previously there were many other communities using diverse languages that looked to Alexandria as their senior See. The full title of His Holiness was Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, the Pentapolis, Ethiopia and All Africa.

Coptic was not spoken in Libya, but Greek was. Likewise the Pentapolis. And also Ethiopia, Nubia, the Sudan, all of which had their own Churches using their own languages all looking to Alexandria in some sense. The Patriarchate of Alexandria could usefully renew that sense of being a wider focus of unity for people from many cultures using their own languages, as it was in the past.

St Severus never speaks of the Church of Alexandria in terms of the language that was spoken there. He does not describe it as the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Church of Egypt, or even less the Church of Egyptians. It is the Church gathered around the See of Alexandria and it extends beyond the boundaries and borders of Egypt since it is not an Egyptian Church, but a Church which embraces many other cultures and peoples.

Likewise Antioch was not just for Antiochians, nor less for Syrians, but it embraced a wide region of different peoples and languages, even the Arabs had their own bishop within the compass of Antiochian arch-pastorship.

It is an accident of history that the Patriarchate of Alexandria has tended to narrow to the minority of Christian people on Egypt, but with the union with British and French Orthodox Christians, and who knows what in the future in other parts of the world, it is again gaining a sense of being a trans-ethnic Patriarchate in which the Coptic Orthodox Church is one aspect.

What happens when there are 5,000 British converts within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in the UK, and 20,000 in the US, perhaps speaking Spanish as well as American? Such a situation will not harm the vitality and spiritual inheritance of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate at all, but it may well require further imaginative steps by the hierarchy to integrate large numbers of committed people of different languages and ethnicities into the union of the Orthodox Church so that the same Orthodox belongs truly to each culture. It has not been a problem in the past.

[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=10602.msg129444#msg129444 date=1296679518]actually, in the uk at least, there are not many orthodox churches outside of big cities, so maybe someone wants to be orthodox and has been reading a lot of byzantine history and may have met orthodox friends on holiday in russia, but the nearest EO church could be 100km away, so that person may come to the coptic church without any previous interest in the coptic language, simply because it is the nearest orthodox church.

Or the opposite may happen, as in my case: The nearest Orthodox Church is Russian (to be more accurate, OCA), and you'll find all kinds of people there. Even non-Chalcedonians like Ethiopians and Eritreans. This is not a problem, as the majority of the service is in English, anyway. (The "Agios" in Greek, fine... ;))

Again, I'm not sure if people are disagreeing with me or if I'm just not making my point clearly enough (Fr. Peter, I still don't believe we disagree). I'm not at all saying that others should be forced to pray in a foreign language that has no relevance to them or their culture. I am saying that even if 99.9% of the people have no interest in Coptic (or Greek, or Armenian, or Syriac, or whatever), and it really doesn't seem to make a difference since 50%+ of the liturgy is in English, still even then we should recognize that there will be people who will carry on the old language to whatever degree it is present, and it should be valued church-wide, not only something for those who actively learn it and teach it. If inquirers come and find you using some Coptic, it should be explained to them that this is where it is in the liturgy, this is what it means, and this is why you use it. Real basic education that doesn't require anyone to be anything they aren't, but explains to them why it is retained in the places where it is retained. Again, learning it doesn't make anybody more Orthodox, because Orthodoxy is not a matter of language. Learning it doesn't even make anyone "more Coptic" (as you don't magically become Coptic by learning Coptic any more than you magically become Arab by learning Arabic or French by learning French; you can only be who you are and God made you who you are and He knows what He is doing). The Church is for everyone. The Coptic language should likewise be for everyone who wants to learn it and sees the value in it. If you don't see the value in it, then you won't keep it (just like if the youth don't see the value in being Orthodox, then they won't be Orthodox. Guess which one I'm infinitely more concerned about? Not the status of Coptic). I do see value in it, and don't think it should be jettisoned in favor of something else when it doesn't need to be (you can have liturgies with both). That's all.

In my life I've learned 4 languages so far. The only way the two that I am not more-or-less native in have been maintained (unevenly, but still maintained) outside of being in communities in which they are native is by connecting them to something in my life that I really, really value. So, in my Arabic classes in college while everybody else was studying the genealogy of Muhammad (blah), I was studying Byzantine Arabic hymns of the Orthodox Church in Lebanon. I'm no Fairuz, but nobody can say that I don't know my way around "Miladouka" or "Inna El-Malak"! (I remember barely anything else, though...hahaha.) I have to believe that it is something similar with Coptic, but maybe that is because I can't imagine anything I value more than my Christian faith. Sure, no one should ever be required to learn a foreign language to be Orthodox or to belong to an Orthodox Church. But in conversations that I have had with ex-Protestants and ex-Catholics who have joined the local OCA, one comment has been repeated over and over: "I was afraid that I might have to learn another language, but I came to realize that if that's what is necessary, that's what I'll do." (This was usually followed by, "...but I was so glad when I found out that it wasn't really necessary!")

I believe the same. I know it's not necessary that I learn Coptic or Arabic or Ge'ez or anything. But at the same time, it can't hurt that I actually want to do so (keeping in mind, I am only talking about me) so long as I keep in mind that I am to be Orthodox FIRST, and anything and everything else comes a very, very distant second.

The bottom line, as always: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10602.msg129445#msg129445 date=1296679878]But the issue is that I want to be Orthodox. I joined the Coptic Orthodox Church because it is necessary to join the Church as she exists and not make up our own Church. But I did not join to become Egyptian. I am English.

Fr Peter,In theory, all Orthodox Churches (at least Oriental Orthodox Churches) have the same theology. Correct? So if all you wanted to be was Orthodox, there was nothing stopping you from becoming Syrian Orthodox vs. British Orthodox. Correct? There was nothing stopping you from becoming Armenian Orthodox vs. Coptic vs. Eritrean and so on. You could have "picked" anyone of them and all of them would bring you Orthodoxy. Now I know it was God's providence that brought you specifically to Metropolitan Seraphim and eventually to the British Orthodox. But if you could specifically choose an Oriental Orthodox Church, there should be no difference at all - regarding which "branch" of Orthodoxy you should choose, if all you wanted was to be Orthodox. Correct? The only difference, in theory, between each of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the cultural component. So while you joined the Orthodox Church to become Orthodox, which you did, you remained English because you joined the British Orthodox Church. If you joined the Coptic Orthodox Church, you won't become Egyptian, you would have become Orthodox with the Egyptian culture. If you joined the Syrian Orthodox Church, you would have become Orthodox with the Syrian culture. And so on.

Would it not be strange if you chose to become Orthodox by joining the Syrian Orthodox Church only to find the Syrians have adopted all Egyptian customs to accommodate all the Copts who lived in that city? Imagine if there was no Syriac or no Syrian foods. All the Syrian hymns were "fixed" with the Coptic music style (ie, the long 20+ minute one vowel hymns). All the Syrian tunes now used Coptic words and text (and you can easily notice the mis-match). And so on. You're still Orthodox in this hypothetical situation. The faith is the same. The evangelism is the same. And so on. The only difference is this hypothetical Syrian Orthodox Church has nothing Syriac, but all Coptic. Have we now lost the Syrian culture? More importantly, why have a Syrian Orthodox Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church in the same city? We have 2 Orthodox Church, both Coptic and neither Syrian. Isn't the Syrian culture valuable enough in itself to preserve it's Syriac culture? It's not because the Syrian culture brings salvation, it's the Orthodox faith. It's not because the Syriac language should be forced on interested converts, but the language is valuable in itself, even if 90% of the parishioners in this hypothetical church do not know or care for Syriac. The same is true for the Coptic Church and English (or Arabic).

You don't have to learn Coptic to be Coptic Orthodox. In my optimistic, ambitious mind, all Copts will be fluent in Coptic. That's my goal. It's not a religious goal. It's a patriotic goal. But this patriotic goal will enhance the religious experience. I wholeheartedly believe you're missing out on many precious gems of the Coptic Church without knowing the Coptic language. George

I agree with you completely Remnkemi-as it pertains to Copts-since this is their heritage and a part of their history. However, people in the West should have a place-like we do-to practice Orthodoxy within their own culture. So I guess what I'm saying is that more importantly than including more and more English into our own liturgies, the hierarchy of the Church should look into establishing missionary churches (see: St. Maurice and St. Verina in Canada) in the West to hopefully one day allow them to pray in an Orthodox fashion but with respect to their own culture as the British Orthdox do. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a very difficult task that will need lots of prayer and planning by the clergy, but I think a very admirable goal for the long term growth of Orthodoxy in the West.